In announcing
RISE, its proposal for a union code of conduct, the Teamsters union
encourages input from all interested parties. In that spirit, I would
like to submit a few suggestions derived from AUD's long and varied experience
in collaborating with reformers in many unions.

Enforcement:
Even in the most admirable of unions, issues of discipline, contested
elections, appeals, charges, etc. are too often decided not on the basis
of law, justice, or simple fairness but by narrow considerations of internal
political power. In a union like the Teamsters which has been the arena
for bitter factional battles, any code of conduct must deal with this
stark fact. Any enforcement policy which relies exclusively on the union's
own power structure will lack credibility. If the government monitorship
is lifted and the court-appointed Independent Review Board dissolved,
it should be replaced by an independent Public Review Board as in the
United Auto Workers but with one important qualification urgently required
to make it credible in this case.

As in the
UAW, the PRB should be composed of eminent public figures who are independent
of the union but are pro-labor and civil libertarian in their outlook.
It should, like the UAW board, function like a kind of Supreme Court with
the power, on appeal, to reverse decisions of the IBT president and general
executive board. It should be provided with an independent budget.

However,
the choice of board members should not rest entirely in the hands of the
union establishment. I would propose that a panel; of, say, 50 or more
nominees be selected by on-governmental public interest groups like the
American Civil Liberties Union, Public Citizen, National Organization
of Women, etc. Of this group of nominees, the union should elect a dozen
or more member to serve a term of three to five years.

Informing
the members: The current RISE plan seems preoccupied with informing
IBT members of the importance of the plan itself and of the evolution
of its many phases. What should be added is information on what their
democratic rights are as established in the union constitution and in
federal law. As a minimum, a strengthening of democracy would require:

1. Compliance
with section 105 of the LMRDA which requires unions to inform their members
concerning the provisions of the Act: on civil liberties in unions, on
safeguards for fair elections and due process in trials, on trusteeships,
and on fiscal responsibility of officers,. In accordance with a decision
in the U. S. Appeals Court, 4th Circuit, members should be informed that
these rights are mandated by federal law and that they have possible recourse
in court, to the Labor Department and other government agencies if they
are dissatisfied with internal union rulings.

2. All members,
without being required to make a formal request, should automatically
receive copies of the international constitution, local bylaws, and all
collective bargaining agreements that determine their conditions of work.
They should have the right, upon request, to inspect all other contract
which affect their work indirectly.

3.Members
should have the right, in orderly fashion, to inspect union books and
minutes to verify the validity of expenditures.

4. Members
should be informed of their right to appeal to the Public Review Board.

On collective
bargaining:

1. Workers
should have the right to vote on ratifying collective bargaining agreements
that regulate their work. In advance of any ratification referendum, copies
of the proposed agreement or an accurate summary should be provided to
the voters and provision made for discussion.

2. Stewards
should be elected by the members they represent.

3. Copies
of local amendments, memos, letters of understanding, etc., which relate
to the agreement should be distributed to the members affected.

Union
elections: Members should be encouraged to participate in the life
of the union. All burdensome barriers to running for office should be
removed.

1. Candidates
for local office should require no more than nomination by one member
in good standing and a second by another.

2. Meeting
attendance rules which almost always operate to disqualify over half the
members from running for office and enable a small clique to remain in
power should be eliminated.

3. Because
they are often unfairly manipulated to disqualify good active members
from running for office, so-called continuous good standing rules should
be eliminated. Union membership for a limited period and good standing
at the time of nomination should be an adequate requirement.

4. In locals
of 500 members or more, officer elections should be by secret ballot,
preferably by mail, supervised by a reliable independent outside agency.

5. Participation
in unions election campaigns by all candidates and a limited number of
their campaigners should be defined as "union business" in union
contracts which require employers to grant leaves of absence for such
purposes.

6. Union
publications should make provision for candidates and slates to present
their views in the pre-election period. In this respect the United Federation
of Teachers in New York provides the model.

Members
rights:

1. A Bill
of rights which incorporates, as a minimum, all the basic rights of free
speech, fair elections, and due process prescribed by federal law should
be written into the union constitution, thereby reducing the need to seek
recourse outside the union.

2. All union
hiring halls should be required to adopt rules which assure that job referrals
are made fairly without discrimination or favoritism. Copies of these
rules should be made available to all affected members. All referral lists
should be open to inspection by members.

3. Union
publications should allow for the expression of dissenting views. The
Masters, Mates, and Pilots provides a possible model for such exchanges.

4. Before
a local or locals are dissolved, split, or merged, notice should be provided
to all affected members. If ten or more members object, the issue should
go promptly to the Public Review Board which will review the proposed
action. If it decides that the action may be suspect, that is, an effort
to suppress legitimate dissent, it may order a secret ballot referendum
of the affected membership to decide the issue, allowing for a discussion
of opposing views.

Use
the following credit line on the materials you use: "From the
website of the Association for Union Democracy. www.uniondemocracy.org. Email:
info@uniondemocracy.org. 104 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11225; USA;
718-564-1114"